Johns Hopkins Diversity Office

[mikbone]

Strange that I meet every single category and feel like I have had to work against the system for everything I have…

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Strange that I meet every single category and feel like I have had to work against the system for everything I have…

That's because privilege is invisible to you. 

[mikbone]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's because privilege is invisible to you. 

[mikbone]

What is the difference between heterosexual and cisgender?  I’m obviously not woke enough.

[NeuroTypical]

I've often extolled the virtues of privilege with woke folk when we're discussing the world's issues.  It's not about getting rid of privilege, it's about making sure as many folks have access to it that I do.   Hooray privilege!   (You say this out loud to their faces, and then come back here and report how they responded.)

They've taught me their language.  Heterosexual has to do with who you're attracted to.  A boy likes girls, a girl likes boys.  Cisgender is the traditional gender to which you adhere which matches your gender expression.  You're a boy who looks and acts and thinks they are a boy, regardless of whether you like boys or girls.  You obviously need more DEI training.

[Ironhold]

There's a reason why a lot of old-school folks, particularly MBAs, see "diversity" programs as cultural and economic poison. 

Basically folks, this whole thing is straight from Satan for the purpose of further dividing humanity. 

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've often extolled the virtues of privilege with woke folk when we're discussing the world's issues.  It's not about getting rid of privilege, it's about making sure as many folks have access to it that I do.   Hooray privilege!

That is exactly the problem.  I remember the question that Chris Gardner asked the rich guy "What do you do? And how do you do it?"  The rich white man told this down and out black man the answer.  Chris then went after it by doing what the man told him to do.  Now Chris is a multi-millionaire.

Wokesters would rather tear down anyone with wealth so that we're all equally poor rather than allow avenues for everyone to become rich.

[Grunt]

So, she has privilege?   She should give her position to someone else to be fair.

[NeuroTypical]

I saw our fever break on this topic in 2022.  The sane forces of “no thanks” are much more organized now.  There are push-backers pushing back, and not losing their jobs or being cancelled for speaking out.

 Behold:

Edited January 12 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

By the way folks, you'll notice she didn't give a new and improved definition of privilege to replace the regrettable/simplistic/poorly worded/exclusionary/hurtful definition.   Don't hold your breath for a new definition from Dr. Golden.  In my experience, once a 'grand expounder' is personally called out and gives a meaningful retraction like this, it's sort of like watching a balloon deflate.  The energy just drains out.

We didn't see this with Harvard, because there was no retraction.  Just a bunch of "I'm sorry you white people are too racist to understand that I'm right and that's why I'm resigning", coupled with a similarly worded statement of defense from Harvard's board.   But I bet 10 bucks that Dr. Golden, the CDO VP role, and Johns Hopkins Office of DIHE, now will suffer from a lack of relevance and mojo.  How permanent that is, remains to be seen.  But it might be permanent.  We can hope.

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 But I bet 10 bucks that Dr. Golden, the CDO VP role, and Johns Hopkins Office of DIHE, now will suffer from a lack of relevance and mojo.  How permanent that is, remains to be seen.

Too much government money going to the special interests who hyped DEI wokeness anyway. It will never stop.  The guards will change.  But the forces will continue.

That is the way of all the earth.  That is the destiny of all empires.

[Traveler]

I am beginning to appreciate the input of Jordon Peterson.  Especially that diversity is not a good thing.  All the violence and problems between cultures (and even individuals) is because of diversity.  That there is no greater engine for war, violence and intolerance than the recognization of diversity.  That for cultures and individuals to get along there has to be a common interest that takes precedence otherwise diversity will always foment various levels of disaster.   

My first experience with a common interest in diverse peoples was while I was in the military.  The common interest was survival in the conflict of war.   I believe that the reason that the USA was considered a diverse melting pot was because there was a common interest of freedom – especially individual freedom.

Once a common interest is well defined, the question is no longer a question of privilege but of contribution.  Those that contribute more are more greatly respected.  What disappoints me most about woke philosophies is that the only interest is economic and then all economic diversities are measured only by money.   This gives rise to equal pay for equal work.  The problem with such thinking is that there can be a great difference between work and contribution.  But there is another problem when privilege is defined by the ability to contribute.  Thus, diversity becomes more an engine of war and other negatives than any possibility of benefit.  This leads me to believe that woke is designed to make things worse rather than better.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

All the violence and problems between cultures (and even individuals) is because of diversity

True. When I think of the main cause of World War II diversity is the first thing that comes to mind.  

[Traveler]

How diversity can be a good thing.  In my lifetime I have observed many from diverse backgrounds join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The reason this becomes a good thing is that all the saints are united in the cause of Christ.  In Moroni Chapter 10 (once we can get beyond the part in the beginning that convinces us to pray about the Book of Mormon) is that every individual that comes into the world is given a spiritual gift (or perhaps more than one or many).  As we accept the diversity of gifts, with the uniting of Christ – all are lifted – even by those of little or seemingly little gift(s).

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

The reason [diversity] becomes a good thing is that all the saints are united in the cause of Christ.

So the good part of diversity is the...uniformity.

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So the good part of diversity is the...uniformity.

Exactly!  See "Songs Sung and Unsung" by Elder Holland (April 2017 GC)

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So the good part of diversity is the...uniformity.

I’m lost as well. 

[zil2]

53 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m lost as well. 

Read Elder Holland's talk.  Or, just think of a choir (or a band).  The sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses (or the different musicians and singers in the band) are each singing / playing a different note / part, and yet when each does their part correctly, together they create a harmony that is (supposed to be) beautiful.

I see this all over.  When I was a programmer, we had our boss, who kept the department running well; the BAs, who helped document requirements and communicate with users as well as coordinate meetings and such; the programmers who wrote the code; the testers, who made sure all the requirements were met and the code functioned as expected; the report writers, who made sure the data collected by the software was output into useful formats for the users; etc.  Different skills, different jobs, done separately, and yet all working to the same end - to produce an application that would help the users.

Edited January 15 by zil2

[LDSGator]

31 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Read Elder Holland's talk.  Or, just think of a choir (or a band).  The sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses (or the different musicians and singers in the band) are each singing / playing a different note / part, and yet when each does their part correctly, together they create a harmony that is (supposed to be) beautiful.

I see this all over.  When I was a programmer, we had our boss, who kept the department running well; the BAs, who helped document requirements and communicate with users as well as coordinate meetings and such; the programmers who wrote the code; the testers, who made sure all the requirements were met and the code functioned as expected; the report writers, who made sure the data collected by the software was output into useful formats for the users; etc.  Different skills, different jobs, done separately, and yet all working to the same end - to produce an application that would help the users.

Thank. I was talking about @Travelers op. I’m lost how he said there is no greater evil than diversity. 

Diversity of thought is a good thing, a very good thing, but it’s not how the real world works. Like I said in another post people generally want to be surrounded by those who spew out what they believe. It applies to liberals, conservatives, atheists, believers…  

[zil2]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Thank. I was talking about @Travelers op. I’m lost how he said there is no greater evil than diversity. 

Diversity of thought is a good thing, a very good thing, but it’s not how the real world works. Like I said in another post people generally want to be surrounded by those who spew out what they believe. It applies to liberals, conservatives, atheists, believers…  

I was responding to the fact that @Traveler's two posts may have seemed to be saying opposite things.  Diversity that creates or worsens divisions (especially to the point of violence or oppression) is evil.  Diversity organized to accomplish a united end is a good thing.  Where reality lines up is a whole other question.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I was responding to the fact that @Traveler's two posts may have seemed to be saying opposite things.  Diversity that creates or worsens divisions (especially to the point of violence or oppression) is evil.  Diversity organized to accomplish a united end is a good thing.  Where reality lines up is a whole other question.

To me it depends if you have confidence in the truth. I’m not terribly worried about suppressing alternative viewpoints or diverse thought. I’m confident what I believe is true.  If I was insecure or scared of other views, than I’d be afraid of diversity. 

[zil2]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

To me it depends if you have confidence in the truth. I’m not terribly worried about suppressing alternative viewpoints or diverse thought. I’m confident what I believe is true.  If I was insecure or scared of other views, than I’d be afraid of diversity. 

If you were getting the life beaten out of you because someone didn't like your definition of truth, you might be more concerned.   This is the type of "diversity" which some people propose - the intolerance of tolerance, only our style of diversity is allowed, yours isn't.  I believe that's the one extreme Traveler meant.

The other extreme is the positive use of diversity Elder Holland explains in his talk.  And current reality is somewhere in between.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Diversity of thought is a good thing, a very good thing,

This is a falsehood.

Diversity of thought has no value of good or evil.

Good thought is good. Bad thought is bad.

How diverse that thinking it has no actual measure of good to bad. It just is.

It's more reasonable to say that oft times diverse viewpoints can be helpful.

But it's also reasonable to say that sometimes diverse viewpoints can be harmful.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is a falsehood.

Diversity of thought has no value of good or evil.

Good thought is good. Bad thought is bad.

How diverse that thinking it has no actual measure of good to bad. It just is.

It's more reasonable to say that oft times diverse viewpoints can be helpful.

But it's also reasonable to say that sometimes diverse viewpoints can be harmful.

Whatever works. I do see it differently. I just don’t understand why it’s so intimidating if someone is confident in their own views. It reminds me of college leftists suppressing the kid who dares to say there are only two genders. Let the kid talk, why is the professor so scared?    

Edited January 15 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Whatever works. I do see it differently. I just don’t understand why it’s so intimidating if someone is confident in their own views. It reminds me of college leftists suppressing the kid who dares to say there are only two genders. Let the kid talk, why is the professor so scared?    

I didn't say anyone's viewpoint should be suppressed.